Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, May 10, 2021 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 32 of 34 <br /> <br />LA21-000025 – ERIC VOGSTROM O/B/O ERIC VOGSTROM, WILLIAM, AND SUSAN <br />DUNKLEY 2709 WALTERS PORT AND 2710 PENCE LANE, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW <br /> <br />practical difficulty because it is already a fixed boundary. Lots 1 and 2 are conforming from hardcover, <br />lot area, lot width, and structural coverage so from that perspective it is a big hill to climb. That is why <br />Staff supports this proposal. The Planning Commission did have some challenges with the parallel <br />driveways; to address those comments, one applicant had talked about doing some cross-sections to better <br />illustrate how that would look. <br /> <br />Walsh thinks the biggest issue was they did not look very far apart and where would the snow go; in <br />reality, they are 10 feet apart. He asked the arguments against putting the Pence Lane cul-de-sac up where <br />the private drive is. <br /> <br />Barnhart does not have any arguments against it. <br /> <br />Crosby thinks the one neighbor in the back had some concerns visually. Pence Lane on the other side of <br />the gates is keeping it at the same width so they do not need to encroach any more. <br /> <br />Barnhart said if it is a private road, it needs to be 24 feet wide. <br /> <br />Crosby said ideally if they had the cul-de-sac there, perhaps they do not have to expand on the other side <br />and can keep that the same width as one neighbor has trees (probably on their property ) and another <br />neighbor has a fence (probably on their property). They would keep that as-is in this design. <br /> <br />Walsh agrees and thinks it looks much better doing it there than trying to put it anywhere down there <br />because then they run into issues. However, since this is a sketch plan without all the issues or variances <br />needed, if this plan goes to Planning Commission, what kind of variances will they need? <br /> <br />Barnhart said right now the only one he can think of is the width of Pence Lane. Staff’s recommendation <br />is that they pave Pence Lane to 24 feet wide, and the cul-de-sac be conforming to City standards. When <br />they come back with an application it may trigger some variances. <br /> <br />Walsh said that would be the cleanest way to go. <br /> <br />Crosby agreed with Walsh this seems like the most reasonable plan. If the cul-de-sac was on the other <br />side it would be right in front of the Heuler’s home which is not great for them, either. <br /> <br />Johnson said from a safety standpoint having the cul-de-sac farther down makes the most sense. <br /> <br />Jay Lindgren, Dorsey and Whitney law firm, is here on behalf of Bill and Sue Dunkley. He would like the <br />Council to hear from the applicant’s position, when they come in with an application it will just be for a <br />re-plat within that area. It is their firm belief that they do not need to widen Pence Lane, it is an existing <br />roadway. He has put all of the records within the packet on page 22 that shows from 1947 on, this was a <br />roadway; that legal conclusion is in there and he thinks it is sound. He noted their view is the conclusion